Table 3. Comparison of Some Related Published Articles.
Reference | Year | Country | Site | Subtype | Number | Method | Result (% positive for EBV) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ko et al. (31) | 2004 | Korea | ENNHL a | TCL a | 11 | ISH- EBER a | 54% |
PCR | 0% | ||||||
Mitarnun et al. (24) | 2006 | Thailand | Sino nasal | 89%TCL | 16 | ISH - EBER | 100% |
11%BCL | 2 | 0% | |||||
Nasopharynx | 17%TCL | 7 | 100% | ||||
83%BCL | 35 | 5.4% | |||||
Feng et al. (33) | 2007 | China | Sino nasal | DLBL a | 6 | PCR and ISH For all cases | 0% |
NKC a /T cell | 44 | 100% | |||||
Tai et al. (6) | 2004 | Thailand | Sino nasal | NKC/T cell | 20 | PCR | 100% |
Quintanilla-Martinez et al. (25) | 1999 | Peru | Sino nasal | NKC/T cell | 28 | ISH-EBER | 90% |
van de Rijn et al. (23) | 1997 | Guatemala | Sino nasal | Head and neck | 17 | ISH-EBER | 38% |
Bahnassy et al (35) | 2006 | Egypt | EN-NHL head and neck | 62% B-cell | 50 | PCR | 70% |
18% T-cell | ISH-EBER | 90% | |||||
20% Nk-cell | |||||||
Ko et al. (31) | 1994 | Korea | NHL | TCL | 50 | ISH-EBER | 61% |
BCL a | 24% | ||||||
Calzolari et al. (19) | 1998 | Italy | Oral NHL (HIV Patients) | DLBL | 6 | ISH-EBER | 100% |
Leong et al. (21) | 2001 | Canada | Oral NHL | All subtypes | 9 Immuno compramised | ISH-EBER | 100% |
IHC-LMP | 62% | ||||||
46 Immuno competent | ISH-EBER | 34% | |||||
IHC-LMP | 10% | ||||||
DLBL | 22 Immuno compramis | ISH-EBER | 27% | ||||
IHC-LMP | 9% | ||||||
3 Immuno competent | ISH-EBER | 100% | |||||
IHC-LMP | 100% | ||||||
Mitarnun et al. (24) | 2006 | Thailand | NHL | BCL | 100 | ISH-EBER | 13% |
TCL | 100 | ISH-EBER | 51% | ||||
CHL | 100 | ISH-EBER | 64% | ||||
Takahara et al. (32) | 2004 | Japan | NHL | NK/TCL | 32 | ISH-EBER | 96% |
PCR | 48% |
aAbbreviations: TCL: T- cell lymphoma, BCL: B cell lymphoma, NKC: Natural killer cell, EN-NHL: Extra Nodal Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, DLBL: Diffuse large B cell lymphoma, ISH-EBER: In Situ Hybridization -EBV (Epstein-Bar Virus)-Encoded RNA (Ribonucleic Acid)